Manny

Originally Posted by ruggbutt The best part about this is that Bard, Mower, Growler and the rest of the LOMAC hatebois can only harp on about Starforce regarding 1.1. Now Bard is posting lies about ED responding to his email saying that he would have to buy a new activation key after his 5 were used up. All evidence points to the contrary though. These small minded morons may convince a few of their leg humping buddies to not purchase the sim, but there's always a few that cannot think for themselves. At least ED applied protection to their investment ... not much can be said about "disgruntled" employees at Hasbro who manage to "leak" a teensy weensy amount of code out in the "hopes" development will continue. Why not simply purchase the right to further development, start your own company, and continue "development"? Why choose the illegal way to advance a sim. If anything, way to go ED, you are ethically modifying and developing your own code and releasing it so I can fly your MiG-29 Anyway, I agree with Goya .. I find myself agreeing with Goya lately, is that a good thing? Well anyway, Goya is good peeps and nothign is served by this thread except for me to defend Lock-On and bash F4 about how it is a piece of illegal crap .. lol kidding. F4 is a good sim but certainly comparing Lock-On and F4 is comparing two trees producing different fruit. F4 came from the tree that focused on 1 plane, F4, so obviously more detail is in sim. Lock-On came from a tree producing 7 and soon 8 aircraft, so naturally less detail but still packed with sufficient vities and nutrients to enjoy it. There is no comparison!

Ok son, I have a question for you. Have you joined this community to bask in the wealth of knowledge Lock-On Ground-Pounders, BVR Jocks, and Scrappers enjoy sharing or to engage in negativity toward Lock-On? Let us review certain facts. Fact is, the Falcon 4.0 product in its' present release as Allied Force, boils down to a series of illegal modifications of stolen source code that was the intellectual property rights and owned by the legal purchaser, Hasbro Interactive who purchased Spectrum Holobyte. Hasbro Interactive chose not to prosecute, to my knowledge, the felons who violated intellectual property rights termed "leaked source code" in an attempt to mask the commision of a crime. Oddly, when Hasbro washed their hands of this entire debacle called the buggy-as-hell Falcon 4 w/ 1.02 patch, their new licensee justified this crime by gathering all developers contributions into a SuperPak to be installed over Falcon 4.0 + 1.02 patch. This was then further persued with Falcon 4: Allied Force that equates to purchasing the copyright owned by Atai of the many modifications out there. Fact is Falcon 4 is nothing more than a single flyable compilation of numerous changes. Falcon 4.0 + represents a team of developers far numerous than ED could ever put together working for free to enhance the simulation. Lemme clarify that. Flacon 4 had a huge contribution toward developing it past 1.02, a huge contribution. I would not be surprised if not only the original development team that stole the code contributed, but also a large number of others, larger in-fact then the present dev team at ED and you think F4 is the way it is because it is somehow better? Now facts about Lock-On. Lock-On is Locked down. Intellectual property, copyright, and licensing belongs to Eagle Dynamics, yes that little team from Russia that brought the first Russian Su-27 to market bearing their classic "Indian Chief" logo, Fighter Collection, and the same small team bringing out Lock-On. Thus, I conclude please do not come to these boards thinking you will tout the joys of F4 over Lock-On cause it won't wash here, son. That product called Falcon 4, though I have much appreciation for it and do own Falcon 4: Allied Force, has a very sorted history and I can guarantee you if that little Russian company called Eagle Dynamics went open soaurce, you better watch out, all bets are off.

6DOF is related only to TrackIR and their new Vector Expansion. I do not understand how the ability to move your head up, down, side to side, and zoom in provides any more realism to the Ka-50 or for that matter how panning your head provides any more realism. Do recall this is a helo. Do recall this is not going to be equivalent to operating an aircraft. Using TrackIR may be more disorienting and should be if ED builds a helo and not a plane with infinite thrust up/down and ability to move the stick forward to drive it. I have used helo sims before like EECH and I will tell you it is not easy to orient yourself while maneuvering using the default pan in the sim. As for all remaining birds, I seriously doubt ED will finish LO without providing AFMs for all aircraft.

Rugg, are you willing to shed some light as to why this individual is so opposed to LO-MAC?

You mentione Harrier. With the Black Shark model, would it not be possible to make a transitionable model from helo, to transition, to aircraft? F-14 did you say? Whoever does it, they have my undying support. I have wanted an F-14 for such a long time now.

I am certain he means official support by ED even if they incorporate your mod as official code and roll with it. I would be highly in favor of this and would make Lo-MAc the only sim I fly. everything else.

Have you forgotten the Janes:USAF that modeled the F-15C or A-10 Cuba or A-10 Thunderbolt II?

Falcon 4: Allied Force ring a bell Yellonet? Falcon 4 for that matter? How about the the other Falcon simulations out there? You never had opportunity to try any of these? Or was it you were not interested in them?

Perhaps I would like to see roles reversed and Western aircraft become dumb AI for a change. At least that is the case when I fly off-line in the Russian birds. As for online and one side against the other, it has appeal and it is a welcome change to have a smarter enemy whatever plane u choose to fly in Lo-Mac.

GG, thanks for chimin' in. As Whisper mentioned, if documentation is the limiting factor, then it is quite understood that an F-16 is added to the simulation. I do understand the F-16 is highly exported. The Mirage is as well! I may never get what I want. That is ok. Perhaps if LO goes open source, we all will get what we want.

:) , Goya, Goya be nice... LOL Ok so my liberal use of "Fanboi" is a bit polarized :icon_redf No I do not think all flyables in ED's product should be Russian only and neither does ED :icon_wink But, however, I would just like to see more focus on the stuff folks paid little attention to. That is all.

Come on Goya, climb down outta the pit of your F-15 and expand your horizon. The success of ED was founded on it's flanker product, period! BTW, last I checked, Janes made a more realistic F-15 sim than ED did. Ok, you may want to see more US flyable in Lock-On, but some do not, particularly me, a paying customer .. 8O, no I didn't say that! I can express that opinion, I hope, without drawing AMMRAMS from Fanbois. As for Russian flyable, last I checked, ED was a Russian combat sim company, that made Russian combat aircraft for its' sim... way to go ED!! I will state there is no equivalent to their A-10 though ever since Janes decided to scrap their A-10 plans ...shame! However, I have an appreciation for positions and opinions. I simply state there are some aircraft best left alone to graze in their respective pastures and the F-16 is certainly one nearly every company that ever put out a sim has touched upon....yuck yuck yuck! Hell even the F-14 or Rafaale or somethingelse hardly touched upon would be more welcome by me and hitting my puter at release than an F-16 sim.

Yes, Pilotasso, we are here to express opinions and I am sure to freely express mine. I will tackle your opinion from the ground up with a rebuttal of my own. Fact is ED's decision is based entirely off the notion that in order to sell a combat flight simulator outside the former Soviet Union (particularly Russia), it must contain specific appeal to the Fanbois, i.e. a US manufactured, over-simulated, and boring combat aircraft. It is a fact Lock-On could have the same appeal to the combat flight sim community without US modeled aircraft in it. In place of the F-15 we could have, for the first time, a MiG-25 or MiG-31, a MiG-21, an Su-37, or an Su-30. In place of an A-10, a MiG-23. Was an appropriate market study performed to determine if a simulation of only Russian aircraft could sell? Perhaps not but then again Su-27 never made it beyond Demo to Flanker 2.5 on a wing and a prayer enough to sustain development and launch ED into Lock-On. Again, I do applaud ED's desire to keep folks like me, a US citizen, satisfied they are at least developing the aircraft I wanna fly, particularly Russian birds. Is bundling the MiG-29K, Navalized version of the Mig-29 that was in Flanker 2.5 and should have been in Lock-On, gonna make having an F-16 in an ED sim more appealing to me? Absolutely not! Perhaps to those Fanbois who need a little extra incentive to buy a combat sim that contains another aircraft but the F-16 -- perhaps where Spectrum Holobyte went wrong in discontinuing their development of the MiG-29 and F/A-18. Nonetheless, Falcon 4: Allied Force may have critics but certainly their die-hard and enthusiast level is not to be challenged and I feel certain ED's sim will not turn their heads away especially with the Falcon 4 Superpak available and the endless mods for that sim thanks to a cleverly designed rouse to leak the source code of Falcon 4. Also, don't say the Middle East is a forgotten theatre since nearly every simulator to date featuring US aircraft has some Campaign or mission-set designed to operate in the Middle East. No, rather the forgotten conflicts are those that never happened, over Russia, over the Crimean Penninsual, Over the Baltics, etc. I will still support ED but I will not lend that support to their F-16 Sim. I do look forward to the Hokum though.

LOL .. That would be a sight to see. When I owned a $15 dollar variety, it performed the same way, cracking sounds, and I finally managed to lift the gimble out of the housing one day while pulling back on the stick. Though the stick still worked, it was never the same :(

Starlight: "You're late dude. I'm already playing with ED's F-16 sim right now. And "tank killers" is history here.... " An ED F-16? This can not be true!! Does the combat flight simulation community not have enough F-16s to bleed a dead horse dry? Does ED really consider success in its' combat flight simulator sales tied to how many US built military aircraft it can put in Lock-On? How pathetic!! At a time when over-saturation is the norm and there is a lack of Soviet built aircraft in combat simulators (except where relegated to dumb AI), ED's role is never more important to ensure these aircraft are represented. Falcon 4.0: Allied Force is released! How would an F-16 improve sales for ED? This is quite disapointing for me as I expected ED to lead the role in developing Soviet-built aircraft. I applaud both ED and 1C Games for providing a "glimpse" into another era of aviation little to no interest or empasis has been applied for someone like myself living in the US. I also congratulate Ed for their bold approach to the Ka-50 but I still want my Ka-52 with an "PANIC:AUTOKILL F-16s" button :icon_evil Bahh whatever!! Decisions decisions and I am sure ED has made their bed and they now have to lay in it. I had hoped the direction they took was not to turn Lock-On, a combat simulator whose roots were founded in the Su-27, into "another" boring simulation of boring, over-simulated and beat to death US aircraft. BAH HUMBUG!! Cheers :icon_jook

:p Man they should lock you up for general flight controller abuse .. lol I have been hard on sticks before myself and broken my share. I don't know what it is with Thrustmaster and their hard-on for heavy spring force. It's like "only real men use big springs" :confused: Then once yer done, back on the ground, you take your death-grip off stick to find it mashed and imprinted in your palm and your right arm noticeable larger then your left. Ohh well I am a fan of light spring forces for that light touch on the stick and subtle movements. I suppsoe you could make fine adjustments with a stock Cougar but you would probably end up with carpal tunnel afterward.

:) Eric can you tell me what the precision slider does? It is mapped to a particular function? Man I shoul dnever have owned the X45 cause I am so used to it the X52 just looks completely foreign, an antirely different product certainly not following a particular design format.

One word: Suncom One product: F-15 SFS Feature: Split Throttle Suncom was the only company to model a Flight Controller on something other than the F-16. If CH steps to the table and provides a throttle better than their CH Pro Throttle ( I do not like it) and a new stick (other then an F-16 .. yuck) I would buy hands down. If CH decided to model the Flanker controller, I would invest in their stock.

Gentlemen, Thank you for recommending modifying spring compression on the Saitek X45. I utilized 12 nylon "zip ties", 10 concentrically on the 3rd and 4th windings and 2 on the second and third to balance the compression. It worked very well to smooth the movement of the spring guide along the base support of the stick. I could not have achieved this with lubrication of any part. Well done! :icon_jook The X45 now moves as smooth as my CH Flight Sim Yoke USB. For those familiar with Flight Controllers, "Joysticks" employ a spring that simulates return to center without the need to seek neutral through aircraft attitude. This is akin to moving a flat hand across the tips of fingers and having the center of this perpendicular "T" automatically seek center. A Flight Yoke does not automatically seek center and the springs meerley return the yoke to an approximate "center" position. The lack of a hard center is the most beneficial control feature and a Flight Controller lacking one is the best possible solution becaue it allows for the smoothest control to, around, and boyond the actual "center." For those that may have read and wondered why I used a Flight Yoke in combat sims, now you know. My X45 now approaches this with smooth, clearly defined movement and still a soft return to "logical" center.

Lol! I agree! Click-Pit fanbois enjoy Flight Simulation but not Combat Simulation for this very reason. Those Combat SIms that have Click-Pits are enjoyable but they do not add more to the realism in my opinion. I agree it is easier to hit a key on a keyboard or map it to HOTAS than grab the mouse which may mean taking your hand off the stick or throttle and then locating the function and ensuring you are manipulating it properly all while ensuring u have proper SA. Now consider being NOE at 140 kts and realizing you need to redjust your optical sight or radar. If mapped to HOTAS, it's eyes on function to confirm properly manipulated and eyes on terrain quickly to correct attitude. I am with Rugg, go ahead and go head down in the pit and lemme put two up your pipe.

Whoa NEO are u sure Saitek put Hall sensors in their X-52? If so then I am gonna get one cause I do not like POTs period. I would like to retrofit my CH Flight Sim Yoke with Hall sensors. If Saitek is building their HOTAS with Hall sensors, then this is the system I want. I want a Cougar too but there are problems though I might try one out and retrofit it with a Hall mod

I don't know about that Lange. There is a lot that quality of construction speaks about the product and I am one to know since I am a former owner of the F-22 PRO and TQS, both of which were a pain in the ass but also brought the feel and joy of flying to bear. What pissed me off most is that Thrustmaster Tech Support suggested the devices be opened by customers and the POTS cleaned, apparently something they could not do before they applied the gook that messed em up in the first place. The Cougar may be a one hell of a sturdy product and I may even buy one or two someday mod and stock but there is something to to say about a product even die hards question out of the box and then, like a stock Mustang, mod it half to death to make it work better and work better is it, not make a good stick the best.

I have miced emotions about TrackIR. I may need to purchase a larger moinitor (17" currently) but the awkward head movement and eye coordination is at times dizzying. I have to learn to move my head and scan with my eye balls as I am too much trying to look around as if I was in an old Cessna 182. Translating those movements to the game is not easy especially when you are now lookin all over the place for baddies. I think I will limit TrackIR for straight and level moments in game and switch it off when I get into combat. I still reference the keyboard for things I would not put on a stick such as gear, certain view and visibility commands, flaps, etc. and having to look down, then look up and recenter my head to know where I am is daunting. An eyeball tracker would be better hehe. Plus u can't shift in your seat and u must remain perfectly still with only your head moving or when u come back to center, forward view, it will be skewed and u have to recenter it again. Man that is too much to handle when I am in combat. Also, with the addition of padlock view in may hard core sims, TrackIR is totally unnecessary and I find the padlock in IL2 and Lock-On better than TrackIR.